>At 04:06 PM 5/25/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:
>
>>As to whether the intersection of M and non-aggression (NA) is entirely
>>within U, we have another thought experiment, this one orginally from
>>David Friedman. Suppose you had a madman on the loose, who will kill
>>hundreds of people unless you shoot him immediately. Unfortunately, you
>>do not own a gun; but MY gun could be easily stolen and used to save the
>>people. I am not aruond, but I have mde it explicitly clear that I want
>>no one to use my gun no matter how important the cause.
>>
>>Utilitarianism will steal the gun and save the people, then repay the gun
>>owner in whatever way possible; M U NA would not aggress against the gun
>>owner.
>
>
> IAN: I believe that we could say that L (libertarianism)
> is the intersection of U (utilitarianism) and M (me first),
> as such (using squares to define sets rather than circles):
>
> ______
> U | ___|___
> | | | | M
> | | L | |
> | | | |
> | ----|----
> --------
>
> Some of M is outside L and U, and some of U is out-
> side L, as you note above. So I think this is it. ?
>
Now, THAT is cryptic!
I must say, Ian, that I find some of your posts to be somewhat
inaccessible, although, to be honest, I read very few of the posts on
this list, yours included. And you are certainly not the only person
on this list whose posts share that quality.
I am curious, though, Ian, what do you do for a living? Are you an
artist? I visited your homepage, and found your artwork pleasing
enough, though I am aware that that quality is highly subjective.
Are you a cryonicist? Your website writings indicate that your
personal beliefs tend towards acceptance of, how can I say it, the
supernatural. That would be unusual for a cryonicist.
**********************************************
Randy Smith
Cryonics: Gateway to the Future?
http://www.mindspring.com/~cryon